Tribunal rules against appellant on CENVAT Credit for Thermal Power Plant; penalties upheld.

The Tribunal held that the plot of land leased by the appellant to the second party did not form part of the factory premises of the appellant. The Thermal Power Plant erected on the leased plot was owned, operated, and maintained by the second party, a separate legal entity. The CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods used for the plant's erection was found inadmissible to the appellant. The Tribunal also ruled that the demand was not time-barred, upheld penalties for suppression of facts, and sustained the interest demand. Appeal No. E/526/2008 was dismissed, while Appeal No. E/1101/2008 was partly allowed for further determination post-merger.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plot of land leased out by the appellant to the second party formed part of the factory premises of the appellant, and who owns, operates, and maintains the Thermal Power Plant erected on that plot of land.
2. Whether the CENVAT Credit in respect of Capital Goods received by the second party on the leased plot and used by them for erection/installation of the thermal power plant will be admissible to the appellant because invoices showed them as consignee.
3. Whether the CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods is admissible in respect of those Capital Goods which are reflected as Capital Assets in the book of accounts of another legal entity and have been capitalized therein.
4. Whether CENVAT Credit is admissible in respect of goods not identifiable but classified under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
5. Whether the demand is hit by limitation and if penalties under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC are justified.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plot of land leased out by the appellant to the second party formed part of the factory premises of the appellant, and who owns, operates, and maintains the Thermal Power Plant erected on that plot of land:

The Tribunal held that the plot of land leased out by the appellant to the second party did not form part of the factory premises of the appellant. The appellant and the second party are separate legal entities with distinct PAN, CST, and MST/BST numbers. The land was sub-leased to the second party for erecting a Thermal Power Plant, and the appellant had no right to use that plot for any production activities. The second party obtained all statutory permissions, constructed, erected, owned, operated, and maintained the Thermal Power Plant. Therefore, the Thermal Power Plant was not the captive power plant of the appellant.

2. Whether the CENVAT Credit in respect of Capital Goods received by the second party on the leased plot and used by them for erection/installation of the thermal power plant will be admissible to the appellant because invoices showed them as consignee:

The Tribunal found that the capital goods were procured by the second party for their own use in erecting the Thermal Power Plant. The mention of the appellant as consignee on the invoices was an attempt to create entitlement to CENVAT Credit for the appellant without passing actual ownership or possession of the goods to them. The capital goods were capitalized in the books of accounts of the second party, and the appellant had no role or authority over the Thermal Power Plant. Therefore, the CENVAT Credit was not admissible to the appellant.

3. Whether the CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods is admissible in respect of those Capital Goods which are reflected as Capital Assets in the book of accounts of another legal entity and have been capitalized therein:

The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods can only be availed if the goods are received in the factory of the manufacturer and used in the factory for the manufacture of final products. Since the goods were not received by the appellant in their factory premises and were not used by them in the process of production, the credit was not admissible. The goods were capitalized in the books of the second party, and the subsequent merger of the two entities did not change the admissibility of the credit. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to determine the quantum of inadmissible credit post-merger.

4. Whether CENVAT Credit is admissible in respect of goods not identifiable but classified under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the decision of the larger bench in Vandana Global Ltd was set aside, and similar views were expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Mundra Port. However, since the credit was denied on the ground that the goods were not received by the appellant and were not used by them in the process of production, the issue became irrelevant. The Tribunal held that credit would not be admissible without identification of goods.

5. Whether the demand is hit by limitation and if penalties under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC are justified:

The Tribunal held that the demand was not hit by limitation as both show cause notices were issued within the normal period of limitation. The charge of suppression was well established against the appellant. The appellant had taken inadmissible credit by suppressing relevant facts from the department. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sustained the demand for interest.

Conclusion:

- Appeal No. E/526/2008 was dismissed, and the Order in Original No. 4/2008/C dated 27.02.2008 was upheld.
- Appeal No. E/1101/2008 was partly allowed to the extent of remanding the matter to determine the quantum of inadmissible credit post-merger. The remaining part of the Order in Original No. 12/2008/C dated 21.08.2008 for the period prior to the merger was upheld in toto.

---